↓ Skip to main content

Exploring Structural Uncertainty in Model-Based Economic Evaluations

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Exploring Structural Uncertainty in Model-Based Economic Evaluations
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40273-015-0256-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hossein Haji Ali Afzali, Jonathan Karnon

Abstract

Given the inherent uncertainty in estimates produced by decision analytic models, the assessment of uncertainty in model-based evaluations is an essential part of the decision-making process. Although the impact of uncertainty around the choice of model structure and making incorrect structural assumptions on model predictions is noted, relatively little attention has been paid to characterising this type of uncertainty in guidelines developed by national funding bodies such as the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). The absence of a detailed description and evaluation of structural uncertainty can add further uncertainty to the decision-making process, with potential impact on the quality of funding decisions. This paper provides a summary of key elements of structural uncertainty describing why it matters and how it could be characterised. Five alternative approaches to characterising structural uncertainty are discussed, including scenario analysis, model selection, model averaging, parameterization and discrepancy. We argue that the potential effect of structural uncertainty on model predictions should be considered in submissions to national funding bodies; however, the characterisation of structural uncertainty is not well defined within the guidelines of these bodies. There has been little consideration of the forms of structural sensitivity analysis that might best inform applied decision-making processes, and empirical research in this area is required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 52 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 25%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 27%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 12 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Decision Sciences 3 5%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 12 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2015.
All research outputs
#13,420,341
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,360
of 1,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,344
of 352,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#18
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.